Talk:Actuary/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Education requirements

The article currently redirects the reader to the credentialing section where the occupations box asks for education requirements. I thought it might be right to also state here that before the examinations one would need to have a bachelor's degree to qualify. I know this is the case in the UK and am reasonably sure the same goes for other countries. Any objections?--Zoso Jade (talk) 08:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Tehcnically, there is no need for a bachelors in the US. -- Avi (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Zoso, you're not quite right when you say a degree is a requirement in the UK. According to http://www.actuaries.org.uk/students/getting_started/become_a_student/admission_regulations a degree is not necessary. Of course it is very unlikely that any employer would take on a student with only the minimum (non-degree) qualifications stated there, but it is possible to become a member and take the exams without a degree. When I started out as an actuarial student there was a requirement, if you were not a graduate, to pass a preliminary exam (abolished many years ago) in order to become a student member. This was a very tough exam, roughly equivalent to Oxbridge scholarship level, so employers could be confident that you were bright enough to cope with the actuarial exams, and I know a couple of (very good) actuaries who qualified this way.

--NSH001 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected--Zoso Jade (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Queen's University Belfast

The page was recently edited to say that the Queens University in Belfast gives the most exemptions of all universities at 8. Evidence is needed that no other university gives 8 exemptions as I do not believe this claim to be true.

I did not do a degree that gives exemptions but I am pretty sure that if a pupil does sufficiently well at Cass Business School's Master's course they do not have to do any of the 8 CTs. This would appear to verify my point as all eight CTs are listed as covered on the course.

I have seen several of my workmates come in with 8 exemptions and none of them attended the Queen's University. Thanks--Zoso Jade (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Second-best job

So says a new study, according to The Wall Street Journal. The survey was conducted by a company that seems non-notable, so I don't think it warrants mention in the article, but I thought I'd mention it here in case other editors disagree and want to update the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Surprising terminology

This sentence surprised me:

Actuaries do not always attempt to predict aggregate future events. Often, their work may relate to determining the cost of financial liabilities that have already occurred, called retrospective reinsurance, or the development or re-pricing of new products.

As I was reading it, I fully expected it was introducing the concept of reserving. I think of retrospective reinsurance as a very special case, perhaps worth mentioning in its own right, but I would prefer to see this paragraph expanded, first mentioning reserving, and optionally discussing some of the smaller examples. Obviously, I can make the change myself, but I'd like to see what others think, in case I'm missing something obvious.--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I Am Actuary link

I understand why more than one person deleted the link, but I disagree. I looked at it quickly, and didn't disagree. But I see it has been added back (with an explanation). I looked at it closer, and think it is an acceptable addition. I first thought it was a personal website, largely talking about the author's experiences therefore questionable. While some sections do talk about the author's experiences, they constitute a minority of the overall website, which does have decent and relevant information for someone interested in the actuarial field. I do understand it is questionable, but I think people should look through the site more careful before assuming it is simply a vanity site.--SPhilbrickT 00:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I did give it more than just a cursory glance. It's an aesthetically pleasing site, but the numerous grammatical errors give a bad impression at first sight, at least in the English version. There is indeed useful information there, but some of it is personal opinion, and the site doesn't always make that clear. I'm not inclined to reverse my removal of the link, but I would encourage the site's author to add information (well-sourced, of course) to this article about the actuarial profession in Asia. That would be very welcome. --NSH001 (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just noticed SPhilbrick's note on Avi's talk page, I'd like to make it clear that "this article" refers to Actuary, not Mulaohu's website. --NSH001 (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I misunderstood, but after re-reading, it was my fault. --SPhilbrickT 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for spending the time reading the website and provide some valuable feedback. The original motivation of this website is to provide a personal view & touch on the profession (to differentiate from those official actuarial society and association's website). thanks again and will do some revision on the grammer!Mulaohu (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

External links in articles are subject to the guidelines at WP:EL, with the caveat that parsimony is desired, as per "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." While I appreciate the effort Mulaohu put into the website, we already have links that allows readers to read personal anecdotes from actuaries—many more actuaries than a single person's perspective, and these are the BeAnActuary and Actuarial Outpost links. These allow the interested reader to get a much wider, if not truly global, perspective of the profession. Furthermore, under links to be avoided (and I understand this does not mean ipso facto forbidden) the eleventh entry is "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Therefore, at this point, I think that the "IAmActuary" site is not appropriate for the article, both in and of itself and in contrast to the existing links. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I was reading the WP:ELpage, even while you were writing this. I thought the site provided some good information, but I fear you are right that it fails to meet the guidelines. However, so does Actuarial Outpost. I must get some real work some - this evening I'll write up something for the talk page, as I believe that the list of External links needs major work.--SPhilbrickT 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference between Mulaohu's site and the AO, is that the AO is frequented by actuaries from all over the world, including leaders of the various societies such as Bruce Schobel, Mary Pat Campbell, Glenn Myers, Arlie Proctor, and a bunch of others under their real names. There is extensive help for exams and actuarial basics too. It is a rich resource for actuaries, more so than a website reflecting a single person's opinion, at least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, I agree that the site should not be linked, but I'm going to explain why it took some time to reach this conclusion. I'll also discuss other external sites in a different section.

The original deletion was by Toddst1, with the explanation "spamlink". I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but it isn't important. I took a look at the site, very briefly, and thought it was just a vanity page.

The links was re-added, then removed by NSH001 with explanation rm linkspam. I was curious that a person would re-add it - it they were truly adding spam, I would expect their reaction to be "darn, got caught" and run off, not try again. So I looked more closely at the article, and wondered if it truly deserved such quick deletion.

Happily, NSH001 provided a more in-depth comment above. Two key points were mentioned:

• Grammatical errors

• Personal opinion, which is not clearly labeled.

Problems, to be sure, but problems that could be resolved with a good copy edit.

At this point, I felt that a moderate amount of work could rescue it as an acceptable link.

However, Avi weighed in, and pointed out that one of the positive aspects of the site was the personal experience, but that is also supplied by BeAnActuary, and the latter is far more professional. However, the clincher is that, as nice as it is, it qualifies as a personal website, and that is clearly disallowed (with exceptions that do not apply here).

I still think it is a decent site, and if the author responds to me, I'll discuss offline whether some of the material could be moved to a more neutral site.--SPhilbrickT 00:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Other external links

I looked at each of the five external links, to see if they met wp:EL. My position is that one does with no qualifications, one does, but raises issues, and three do not.

• Be An Actuary: The SOA and CAS jointly sponsored web site is fine. I support retain.

• Global actuarial discussion forum is problematic. It is an open wiki. Sorry, it is a discussion forum, not an open wiki, so the following discussion of the exceptions doesn't apply. end edit The exception to open wiki requires substantial history of stability (probably) and substantial number of editors. The policy doesn't elaborate whether editing for language is sufficient, or whether the intention is strong content editing. Given WP:CENSORED, it seems unlikely that the concern is over language. I plead ignorance to the specific policies regarding editing, if the decision turns on this point, I can do more research, but the first post I found (see collapsed item below) doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the site is rigorously vetting the actuarial content

• This website has a lot of value to the actuarial profession. Almost all students use it fairly regularly, we realy on it heavily for exam discussions. Fellows use it regularly to to discuss solutions to commom problems. This may be subjective, but I do not have any numbers to support my input. (p.s I am a newcomer to the disussion forms)HunterDuke (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Post from Actuarial outpost

words of love, soft and tender Posted 07-13-2009 at 11:38 AM by sweetiepie Updated 07-13-2009 at 08:19 PM by sweetiepie It's been a 4 day weekend. My phone, my laptop, and my pda are recharging. I'm recharging, drinking diet coke and playing Anno 1404, a retarded resource management game. I've been doing so for 3 hours and there's nothing on my mind except the providing my citizens with luxuries. I receive a super sweet text from the girl: "Now here's the part where I fall asleep without your arms around me. Should be simple enough, right? Millions of people do it every night." "ps take care of yourself this week darling" I don't know. I guess I should say something. So I keep her rhyme pattern and write. "It'll be easier not having to worry about your arm circulation or your pillow situation, or waking you on the way to the jon again and again." Oh hell why not. "Or being kept awake by the steady shock of your living beauty." "so fcking annoying you know? goodnight darling." She's a romantic and a Romantic, so I can get away with corny sht like 'living beauty'. If only it were true. I mean, she is beautiful, and her being alive, sleeping next to you demands respect. But it didn't keep me awake. We didn't spend our nights in hi-def, as far as I was concerned. I mean, once again, I hope she doesn't fall in love with me. She's not the type to, she hails from the sensualist side of the fence, but she wants me for my words, and words are dangerous. They want to be used. It's like being well hung. Only, if you're well hung, the most you'll bruise is a cervix. I have the power to cause cardiac damage.

I'll emphasize that I doubt that this post is representative, but it's the first one I found.

I lean toward delete, but I'd like to hear other input first.

• actuarial wiki This appears to be a wiki, but clicking on it brings up no content. Clear delete unless someone can claify that the site is down, or misspelled, and the actual site passes muster.

• Actuarial Wiki This is a wiki. One with only a single post in the last 30 days. I poked around for substantive content, and didn't find much beyond a borrowed glossary. There may be something of value here, but it isn't evident. I suggest delete.

• American Society of Pension Actuaries This is clearly relevant and meets the guidelines as I understand them. However, if we include one organization that credentials actuaries, why just this one? Unless someone can explain why this one is privileged, I'd add the CIA, CAS, SOA, CAPP, and AAA, and that just North America, and I've probably missed some. We can add in the counterparts from countries around the world, but before we do so, we ought to discuss organization issues, as there are quite a few. So I propose retain, but I'd like to start a conversation on which others should be added, and how the list should be organized.--SPhilbrickT 00:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm a regular at the Global actuarial discussion forum, better known as the Actuarial Outpost. There are various sections there, some are more useful than others. There are professional sections (life, health, pension, etc.) and exam sections, and there are non-professional sections (sports, politics, etc.). As Avi mentioned in the preceding section, the Actuarial Outpost has attracted several prominent North American actuaries who post under their own names, including Bruce Schobel (former SOA president), Jeremy Gold (who has turned the pension world on its ear with his advocacy of financial economics), Carol Marler, Mary Pat Campbell, and others. When the SOA has its elections, candidates often come to the Outpost to answer members' questions. I think it's a valuable resource, but I don't know whether it falls under WP:ELNO (#10, no discussion forums).

I'm not questioning that it contains valuable information. However, that isn't the sole criteria for inclusion. Discussion forums are prohibited—if there are exceptions, I missed them. Further, I tried to access the forum, and other than getting to the blog portion, I failed. Am I correct that it requires registration? If so, that is an additional sufficient reason for removing. (There is an exception for registration required sites, but I don't believe it applies here.)--SPhilbrickT 12:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1. ASPA has changed its name to the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries. While their link clearly satisfies the WP:EL criteria, they shouldn't be favored over the first-tier US actuarial organizations, the SOA and the CAS. And US organizations shouldn't be favored over any other country's. Maybe we should have a "See also" link to Category:Actuarial associations. By the way, CAPP changed its name to the Conference of Consulting Actuaries a long time ago. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I should have remembered the CoCA change, thanks for reminding me. I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense—adding 42 entries doesn't sound like a good solution, but adding a link to the category is a nice solution.--SPhilbrickT 12:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening definition of actuary

I don't think that the current description of an actuary provides a clear idea to people of what actuaries actually do. It merely links actuaries with financial risk - but what is it that actuaries actually do and what do companies pay them for? In the opening actuarial subject of my actuarial uni degree one of the first things they did was provide us with what they thought is the most comprehensive, clear and concise definition of an actuary: "An actuary is a professional who analyses risky cash flows to provide advice for the purpose of strategic decision making." I can find a broadly similar definition here: http://www.actuaries.org/ABOUT/Brochures/Actuarial_Profession_EN.pdf Utopial (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actuaries analyze more than risky cash flows. I think the description here is actually better:

The future is uncertain. Some of the events that can happen are undesirable. "Risk" is the possibility that an undesirable event will occur. Actuaries are experts in:

*Evaluating the likelihood of future events
*Designing creative ways to reduce the likelihood of undesirable events
*Decreasing the impact of undesirable events that do occur.

-- Avi (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Roles and Responsibilities

Why is this section removed again and again?

Typically, an actuarial career progresses through several roles, depending on qualifications and experience, such as:

1. Trainee (i.e. apprentice, temp)
2. Executive (i.e. surveyor, modeller, analyst)
3. Associate Actuary (i.e. team leader)
4. Actuary (i.e. project manager) and
5. Chief Actuary (i.e. risk director)

within an organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.218.253 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Avraham removed it because, as he wrote in his edit summary, it is "Incorrect AND unsupported". I just removed it for the same reason. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WProject

Actuaries are a type of statisticians, and thus the article is in scope. -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. The WikiProject Statistics is about the science of statistics (otherwise its scope would be so broad as to being able to include every article on Wikipedia, since one can collect statistical data on just about any topic and therefore claim that that topic belongs to WPStatistics). Additionally it was agreed that WPStatistics would include the history of statistical science, and the biographies or prominent statisticians (again scientists). The article statistician falls within the scope of the project only barely, since statisticians can be either applied or theorists, and if we include the biographies of theoretical statisticians, we have to include the definition of the term statistician as well. But since actuaries are not actually scientists, it's a purely applied field, this article falls out of scope of the project... I'm not saying that it's a bad article or anything like that, just the scope of WPStatistics is purely theoretical and not applied. // stpasha » 07:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us continue the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics#Clarification of scope? -- Avi (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I see now that the List of statisticians clearly specifies that it includes prominent statisticians, actuaries and demographers, which makes the article related to the project. However I will reassess the importance in WPStatistics template to at least Mid. // stpasha » 16:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Credentialing section

I think it is about time that the credentialing section be spun off into its own article, per summary style. Perhaps a brief mention of the largest systems worldwide (UK, US, Australia) can be mentioned, but it should be brief and lead to a new article. Any ideas for the name of the new article; something like "Actuarial credentials"? -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's about eight months, and no one has commented; shall I take that to mean overwhelming support? :-) -- Avi (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I finally did it today, and split off the credentialing section to Actuarial credentialing and exams. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good move. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

picture

Can't we find a nicer pic than Katrina?

Say, a cemetery?

Or the Bills of Mortality? Or Lloyds of London? Meepbobeep (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture used in Actuarial science, but it lacks the "oomph" of Katrina, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's already in the article :) -- Avi (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was completed thrown off by the picture on discovering this page. After reading the article, I can see the relevance but I do not understand why we have chosen a disaster over any other possible relevant image, this event in particular over any other or, in fact, this image over any other - it is not clear or interesting. FloreatAntiquaDomus —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloreatAntiquaDomus (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have another suggestion? -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be too irreverent to use the About Schmidt poster?  :) MikeTheActuary (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes :P (and a fair-use violation as well) -- Avi (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest that the next time there's a CAS or SOA meeting in Las Vegas, someone contribute a picture of attendees at the roulette wheel.  ;) MikeTheActuary (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an actuary. My wife took a picture (that we have on our Flickr site) of me at work. There's me at the desk, a coputer screen showing a spreadsheet, stacks of Annual Statements and binders, and lots of other clutter. You could use that. 64.61.120.42 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First Black actuary

Here is a reference of sorts for the fact that Robert J. Randall Sr. was the first black actuary. FSA 1952

http://vimeo.com/1541614

Sugarfoot1001 07:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarfoot1001 (talk • contribs)